Last year, Anonymous took down MasterCard and Visa websites; this week, after …

Share this story

"Why in gods green earth are we attack [sic] a toilet paper company?" asked one Anonymous member this week on an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel devoted to planning the group's operations. The target in question was the website of Angel Soft toilet paper, owned by Georgia-Pacific, which is in turn owned by Koch Industries, which is controlled by the two Koch brothers, Charles and David, who have funneled their vast wealth into Tea Party and libertarian causes for years. The site stayed up.

Anonymous doesn't like the Kochs (the group is currently attempting to "Kochblock" them, without much success). Indeed, it doesn't like a lot of people. Anonymous "operations" have proliferated faster than a meme on 4chan, the imageboard from which Anonymous emerged years ago.

The list goes on and on. But as the targets have spread, the effectiveness of the attacks on them appears to have diminished. Even when much of the Anonymous interest was on #opwisconsin over the weekend, the group's vaunted distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks could only take down right-wing strongholds like Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, and Club for Growth for short periods of time. Several targets, including the government of Sweden, appeared impervious.

A strength of Anonymous is the bottom-up nature of its targeting and planning; anyone who wants to start a new op simply starts one and tries to corral enough interest to execute it. But it also makes it hard to focus.

Last year, when unified behind Operation Payback (which targeted copyright holders, then WikiLeaks adversaries), Anonymous took down just about every site it targeted, including the RIAA, MPAA, US Copyright Office, MasterCard, Visa, and Swiss bank PostFinance. Even PayPal was affected enough that it called in the FBI.

This week, Angel Soft's double-ply comfort defeated the now-extremely-distributed denial of service attacks.

Even Anons are getting fed up. "We cannot afford to tackle every opponent that dares to confront us, or to corrupt our numerous societies," says one representative press release. (Such press releases can be authored by anyone and, as such, do not represent anything like an "official" Anonymous viewpoint.)

"Everyday, there are new operations," it continues. "Some even in the same exact topic. For the revolutions happening amongst our eastern brethren, there is an operation for each country. This does NOT help gain support. This does NOT make matters simpler. This will only cause more problems than solve them. Anonymous, we should work to consolidate our tactics."

Not so magnanimous

What is Anonymous up to? Anything and everything its various self-identified members propose. These ideas are often in conflict, with one of the most potent debates occurring between those who attack "for the lulz" versus those who act out of ethical and moral imperatives (the so-called "moralfags").

While many members want to promote democracy, stand up for free speech, and push transparency (on governments and corporations), others just want to stir the pot.

"We laugh in the face of tragedy," said one post on open-posting site AnonNews, "we mock those in pain, we ruin the lives of other people simply because we can, these things we do for the lolz [sic] and we do them with no remorse, no caring, no love, and no sense of morality, we attack all things in this way, we can, we will, and we have destroyed countless that stand to harm Anonymous."

Some of the "moralfags" have left the main "Anonymous" tent to set up small camps of their own nearby. This happened recently with the group calling itself "Magnanimous," which objected to some Anonymous tactics and targets. Magnanimous has worked with Anonymous on the "ToiletWars" over the weekend, however, saying that "some Koch related targets took a beating as well."

While Anonymous takes as its motto the tag:

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us - always.

Magnanimous adopted its own logo and altered the Anonymous motto:

We are Magnanimous.
We are Anyone.
We do not negotiate.
We do not compromise.
We are in your legislature fixing your liberties.

Not all Anons took kindly to this move. One Anon called them out, saying, "Anonymous cannot participate in joint operations; with anyone. We are everyone. You are a portion of Anonymous. We act as one. Cease using a separate title. The only possible implementation of a different title is in order to take claim for your actions; making you a disgusting little group that requires credit for the actions you take."

The end result was predictable. On Tuesday night, Magnanimous leader "antivigilante" entered the Anonymous chat rooms in spectacular style:

Operation WakeUp ("Simply Wake Up on March 9th and know, the world is one—think about this on March 9th. We are together on this planet.")

Operation Icarus ("Attention Brothers: The opportunity to create financial chaos and public unrest and from that, there will be a previously unachieved amount of lulz to be had. Charge your lasers and aim them at the the New York Stock Exchange.")

Operation Blowback ("The American media has committed many crimes recently, all of them ignored by everyone except for us. We, the people, will not allow this to continue.")

Operation Shutdown ("On March 4th the US government will shutdown and all nonessential government functions will be put on hold. This gives us a chance to show the world that we are a force to be listened to. This will give us a chance to gain leverage. This will give us an undeniable voice in the world. We must attack while they are weak or they will eventually land a crippling blow.")

That's in addition to #opemmaa, the plan to recruit female Anons, or #opnewblood, which seeks to explain the often confusing ways of Anonymous to new recruits.

Things have gotten so chaotic that even some members who thrive on chaos have had enough. One proposed the meta-op "Operation Operation," in which "the question now is not what Anonymous is or should be. The question now is what Anonymous should do to solve these increasing problems!"

Anons are trying to work out various systems for vetting press releases, holding votes on targets, etc, as a way of organizing the chaos a bit, but the moves run counter to the non-hierarchical tendencies of most Anons.

As one Anon put it in yet another press release, "We are plasma. We are given unique life through our lack of connection, we have no structure, and through drive and energy of our members we are given life beyond the controlling forces around us. We are the state which cannot be contained."

201 Reader Comments

Nate, I've enjoyed your articles on this subject a lot, but this article doesn't seem all that newsworthy to me. The reality of it is, all the chaos and order that they're enveloped in is nothing new. And all those people on irc, are just a small minority of people who claim to be anonymous when it suites them. I predict things will die down for a while actually. All those people are just trying to influence anonymous, and trying to control anon is like trying to control the tides, you can make waves, but the tide will still go out. If some idea comes up and lots of people like it, then something might happen, or it might not, you never know.

These guys are like the bullies on the playground, searching for any negative attention that they can get. Please move on to something else already. I don't really care if Anon refers to a bunch of its sanctamonius members as "moral***s".

Hmm... Okay, so other than HBGary, who have they "destroyed" actually? Their estimate of "countless" seems to be pretty finite as far as I've seen. I guess being taken offline for a little while equates to being "destroyed" in their little minds. These guys need to take the blinders off and look at the big picture for a change.

They are learning the problem with cyberwarfare. Unlike real warfare, where a bullet in the head perpetually stops your opponent, in cyberwarfare the most you can do with common attacks is delay your opponent. You defaced their website? Who care, it will be back in 30 minutes. If they want to prosecute a war, they need to attack the backups, then the data, then the infrastructure. Otherwise they are not having any real effect. At all.

Quote:

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Bear in mind, this is the guy who WROTE the constitution.

Note that 'patriots' comes before 'tyrants'. Jefferson fully expected that those who rebel would put their lives on the line, literally. Anon has done nothing to draw blood from either side - not even Barr's. You might think it looks bad, but I bet he comes out with just a few scratches.

Overall i like Anonymous. while I am a Libertarian (- Crazy Pants) and therefore opposed to some of thier political ends...if they have such, the idea that a group of citizens fighting back pleases me. And for the most part I understand it. I also believe that internet and computer hackers are the last true freedom fighters in the world.

Anonymous shows the world that we are not powerless that we can do something, and it is correct that thier actions are more annoyance then anything....but only to the stupid which I think is the point all the while. Anonymous is not really anything new. the internet has just made it manifest more...like MP3s. We all illegally shared music since day one. Copied CDs, made mix tapes off the radio and so on, but it was not a big deal to the Music Industry until the internet made it easier. The same as Anonymous. They have become a manifestation of angst and discontent...and an outlet for displeasure.

I smile when i see Anonymous try to organize if that is what it can be called. i look at the move as I do with Libertarians. We don't like structure....nor large national movements so when we get into a room we argue more between each other then with others of opposing ideaologies. It tickles me. Yet if Anonymous organizes I won't fear them....I will be saddened by it. Then they will have become what they dispise.

Stare into the darkness long enough....

Damn right.

Of course what a lot of Tea Party critics fail to realize is that the Tea Party doesn't have much more control of it's membership than Anonymous. Also Anonymous doesn't have any entrenched politicians trying to co-opt it. So yeah, they are both like slime mold, just oozing around till it's time to make spoors. Of course I use slime mold in a purely non pejorative sense. I'm a Libertarian too.

I for one support Anonymous as a necessary evil. Sometimes their targets are stupid, but what do you expect from a group with no real central leadership that gathers numbers under the flag of entertainment through chaos? Once in awhile the beast moves on a target that really needs it or exposes something that needs to be exposed. HB Gary Federal coming to mind. Often they do what they do for the wrong reasons but considering how apathetic the American people are about our liberties being eroded, political corruption, corporate takeover of our legislative system, and reality TV, it is nice to see someone, anyone, who cares enough to stir the pot.

Slightly off topic the TEA party is a clusterfuck of double speak. If the majority of them actually stood for what they claim they might not be a bad thing (although their view on the free market is a bit naive, left completely unregulated we would be in an even worse oligarchy than we are now). The problem is like all other political parties before them they use a pretty message to hide the ugly face of their narrow minded, politically polarized membership, all of whom are certain that they know what is best for us, and if given the ability, would force their own narrow view of the world down our throats. I am not saying the Dems or the GOP are much better, but let's not pretend that the TEA party is fundamentally different. All political parties, in the end, exist to push their own agenda on all of us, and basically represent the opposite of freedom. Of course it is to deeply ingrained in the system now. Getting rid of the political party system, or even moving to something other than the 2 party system is pretty much a no sell.

I for one support Anonymous as a necessary evil. Sometimes their targets are stupid, but what do you expect from a group with no real central leadership that gathers numbers under the flag of entertainment through chaos? Once in awhile the beast moves on a target that really needs it or exposes something that needs to be exposed. HB Gary Federal coming to mind. Often they do what they do for the wrong reasons but considering how apathetic the American people are about our liberties being eroded, political corruption, corporate takeover of our legislative system, and reality TV, it is nice to see someone, anyone, who cares enough to stir the pot.

Slightly off topic the TEA party is a clusterfuck of double speak. If the majority of them actually stood for what they claim they might not be a bad thing (although their view on the free market is a bit naive, left completely unregulated we would be in an even worse oligarchy than we are now). The problem is like all other political parties before them they use a pretty message to hide the ugly face of their narrow minded, politically polarized membership, all of whom are certain that they know what is best for us, and if given the ability, would force their own narrow view of the world down our throats. I am not saying the Dems or the GOP are much better, but let's not pretend that the TEA party is fundamentally different. All political parties, in the end, exist to push their own agenda on all of us, and basically represent the opposite of freedom. Of course it is to deeply ingrained in the system now. Getting rid of the political party system, or even moving to something other than the 2 party system is pretty much a no sell.

Wow lot of long posts on this thread. Sadly the only solution that I see is for people to stop being so lazy in their thinking and way more independent. We are all doomed.

Thanks guys. I'm just glad that I'm still able to find some way to support Nate's stories with those damn masks, eventually I won't be able to wring any more blood from that stone. The Angel Soft package was just too juicy a target to pass up.

Unfortunately I have no idea what "Tea Party" is and as that sound like local American politics I have no inclination to look on Wikipedia so I don't support Anon's new target. I wish they would go back to concentrating on the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BPI, the scummy lawyers etc so I can join in as well

The name is a reference to the "Boston Tea Party" when the Colonial Rebels in America seized a cargo ship and threw all the tea into the harbor as a protest against the Crown. It's considered one of the defining moments in the American revolution, and the phrase "No Taxation without Representation" was born out of the event.

As for the "Tea Party", it's hard to define them; they're a recent creation that came mostly out of the Republican party but they don't seem to have much of a coherent message other than "The government sucks right now".

I would disagree with this. While it's true that they mostly came out of the Republican party, they are not Republicans. The Republican party lost its way years ago, and aside from social issues, was little different from the Democrats in the eyes of true conservatives. Tea Party members favor a small, efficient government and a balanced budget. Most importantly, they believe the government's job is not to provide its people with entitlements, but to provide everyone an equal opportunity to achieve their life goals. And while most are socially conservative, social issues are not the focus of the Tea Party, its about economics, policy, and the extent of government reach and control.

Disclaimer: while I am not a Tea Party member, I am sympathetic to their cause

Which is all well and good, except.....

The "tea party" is perfectly happy to get their sympathizers to hear "Obamacare" by telling them it might affect their Medicare. And that most Tea Party sympathizers gladly shout "Say no to the Socialist Obama!" out of one side of their mouth, and "Don't touch my Social Security and Medicare!" out the other.

Because, in reality, while you may be correct to identify with the more Ron Paul-oriented aspects of the Tea Party, which is fairly coherent in its intentions, the vast majority of people who identify gladly suck up the ravings of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and have no ideology that makes any sense, at all.

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Bear in mind, this is the guy who WROTE the constitution.

Note that 'patriots' comes before 'tyrants'. Jefferson fully expected that those who rebel would put their lives on the line, literally. Anon has done nothing to draw blood from either side - not even Barr's. You might think it looks bad, but I bet he comes out with just a few scratches.

You forget that in the decades leading up to open rebellion, the colonists printed stacks of pro-rebellion papers, defaced royalist proclamations and posted edicts, ignored or evaded taxation, and obstructed royal agents.

The time for open, armed rebellion may come, someday, but it must always be provoked by the government attempting to prevent it (by escalating the situation to confiscation of arms and obstructing the right to free assembly).

Unfortunately I have no idea what "Tea Party" is and as that sound like local American politics I have no inclination to look on Wikipedia so I don't support Anon's new target. I wish they would go back to concentrating on the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BPI, the scummy lawyers etc so I can join in as well

The name is a reference to the "Boston Tea Party" when the Colonial Rebels in America seized a cargo ship and threw all the tea into the harbor as a protest against the Crown. It's considered one of the defining moments in the American revolution, and the phrase "No Taxation without Representation" was born out of the event.

As for the "Tea Party", it's hard to define them; they're a recent creation that came mostly out of the Republican party but they don't seem to have much of a coherent message other than "The government sucks right now".

I would disagree with this. While it's true that they mostly came out of the Republican party, they are not Republicans. The Republican party lost its way years ago, and aside from social issues, was little different from the Democrats in the eyes of true conservatives. Tea Party members favor a small, efficient government and a balanced budget. Most importantly, they believe the government's job is not to provide its people with entitlements, but to provide everyone an equal opportunity to achieve their life goals. And while most are socially conservative, social issues are not the focus of the Tea Party, its about economics, policy, and the extent of government reach and control.

Disclaimer: while I am not a Tea Party member, I am sympathetic to their cause

Which is all well and good, except.....

The "tea party" is perfectly happy to get their sympathizers to hear "Obamacare" by telling them it might affect their Medicare. And that most Tea Party sympathizers gladly shout "Say no to the Socialist Obama!" out of one side of their mouth, and "Don't touch my Social Security and Medicare!" out the other.

Because, in reality, while you may be correct to identify with the more Ron Paul-oriented aspects of the Tea Party, which is fairly coherent in its intentions, the vast majority of people who identify gladly suck up the ravings of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and have no ideology that makes any sense, at all.

Well the older members may still want their socialist programs but I'm in my thirties and I don't expect anyone to breast feed me for a large fraction of my adult life, and I sure don't want to do it for anyone else. I want my SS tax refunded or failing that to just cut and run. That's why I consider myself a libertarian and not a Tea Partier.

I was engrossed in reading about the exploits with HBGary and interested in learning more about them (but not to the point where I would completely condone them - just a better understanding), but now that I see this it makes me think of them as just another politcal party. Supposedly one big ideal, but so much internal fighting, bickering, and backstabbing that they can't effectively do anything or be taken seriously. That is what will happen to them if they don't get their act together.

Unfortunately I have no idea what "Tea Party" is and as that sound like local American politics I have no inclination to look on Wikipedia so I don't support Anon's new target. I wish they would go back to concentrating on the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BPI, the scummy lawyers etc so I can join in as well

The name is a reference to the "Boston Tea Party" when the Colonial Rebels in America seized a cargo ship and threw all the tea into the harbor as a protest against the Crown. It's considered one of the defining moments in the American revolution, and the phrase "No Taxation without Representation" was born out of the event.

As for the "Tea Party", it's hard to define them; they're a recent creation that came mostly out of the Republican party but they don't seem to have much of a coherent message other than "The government sucks right now".

I would disagree with this. While it's true that they mostly came out of the Republican party, they are not Republicans. The Republican party lost its way years ago, and aside from social issues, was little different from the Democrats in the eyes of true conservatives. Tea Party members favor a small, efficient government and a balanced budget. Most importantly, they believe the government's job is not to provide its people with entitlements, but to provide everyone an equal opportunity to achieve their life goals. And while most are socially conservative, social issues are not the focus of the Tea Party, its about economics, policy, and the extent of government reach and control.

Disclaimer: while I am not a Tea Party member, I am sympathetic to their cause

The tea party position is more accurately described as: Government sucks unless it directly benefits me; government also sucks if it doesn't help me in the ways I expect. A pot hole on my street proves that government can't do anything right; fixing a pot hole on your street is a waste of my tax dollars.

This. They're a bunch of hypocrites. People who never grew up, probably got bullied as a child, and now want to stick it to "the man." They claim to stand for free speech, but apparently only if they agree with what you're saying, so sorry Glenn Beck. They say they stand for democracy, yet they attack the governor of Wisconsin, who was elected by democracy and is doing nothing illegal, yet they somehow equate with what the Libyan government is doing. And if the Tea Party isn't a shining example of democracy, I don't know what it is. How is it any different from the people currently inhabiting the Wisconsin capitol building? It isn't, the only difference is in ideology.

While I doubt we agree on much, I do agree with your description of Anon. At least it seems to apply to most of them. They are highly hypocritical. This is the same kind of thing we get pissed at Fox News for. They call protesters that they agree with patriots. But those that they don't agree with are hooligans or thugs and the like. Hypocritical in the extreme. You can't have it both ways. I don't think a group like Anon could ever be otherwise though. To do so would require principles and organization, things they are dead set against.

How many lives would they affect by attacking the NYSE? How many retirements could they possibly ruin? Here's hoping they shred themselves to pieces.

They cannot possibly do more damage than the investment banks and brokerage firms. In fact, by interfering with some operations, they may actually save people's retirements funds.

The problem with attacking the NYSE is that the exchange is run by computers not humans right now. Even a simple glitch in that massive trading system costs companies millions of dollars before a fix can be applied. If Anonymous decided to attack something like that and mess it up, the amount lost by everyone could not be comprehended. The worldwide financial crash from 2009 onward would look like someone losing a jar pennies down a manhole. Not only would they be hurting everyone's finances, I'm pretty sure that would put them near the top of the world wide terrorist list, if they aren't already.

Unfortunately I have no idea what "Tea Party" is and as that sound like local American politics I have no inclination to look on Wikipedia so I don't support Anon's new target. I wish they would go back to concentrating on the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/BPI, the scummy lawyers etc so I can join in as well

The name is a reference to the "Boston Tea Party" when the Colonial Rebels in America seized a cargo ship and threw all the tea into the harbor as a protest against the Crown. It's considered one of the defining moments in the American revolution, and the phrase "No Taxation without Representation" was born out of the event.

As for the "Tea Party", it's hard to define them; they're a recent creation that came mostly out of the Republican party but they don't seem to have much of a coherent message other than "The government sucks right now".

I would disagree with this. While it's true that they mostly came out of the Republican party, they are not Republicans. The Republican party lost its way years ago, and aside from social issues, was little different from the Democrats in the eyes of true conservatives. Tea Party members favor a small, efficient government and a balanced budget. Most importantly, they believe the government's job is not to provide its people with entitlements, but to provide everyone an equal opportunity to achieve their life goals. And while most are socially conservative, social issues are not the focus of the Tea Party, its about economics, policy, and the extent of government reach and control.

Disclaimer: while I am not a Tea Party member, I am sympathetic to their cause

Which is all well and good, except.....

The "tea party" is perfectly happy to get their sympathizers to hear "Obamacare" by telling them it might affect their Medicare. And that most Tea Party sympathizers gladly shout "Say no to the Socialist Obama!" out of one side of their mouth, and "Don't touch my Social Security and Medicare!" out the other.

Because, in reality, while you may be correct to identify with the more Ron Paul-oriented aspects of the Tea Party, which is fairly coherent in its intentions, the vast majority of people who identify gladly suck up the ravings of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and have no ideology that makes any sense, at all.

Well the older members may still want their socialist programs but I'm in my thirties and I don't expect anyone to breast feed me for a large fraction of my adult life, and I sure don't want to do it for anyone else. I want my SS tax refunded or failing that to just cut and run. That's why I consider myself a libertarian and not a Tea Partier.

Exactly. I'm a recent college graduate, and have no delusions of Social Security or Medicare ever benefiting, nor, out of principle, would I want them to. Government workers don't pay these taxes, instead directly funding their own personal retirement, and it is unfair that only they get this privilege. I would opt out of SS or Medicare in an instant if I could. As it stands, I fund my own retirement, and someone else's via SS without any hope of getting a return or benefit from it.

EDIT: grammarEDIT: I realize this thread has gotten completely off topic, and a lot of that is my doing, so I'm done with the political conversations.

Am I the only one that suspects that most of what is on those IRC chats right now is disinfo? Anonymous has 'Co-Intel Pro v5.6.25' written all over it.

I'm really not a conspiracy guy, but I suspect that NSA/CIA/FBI, all sorts of DoD guys, Mossad and lord knows who else is crawling all over those boards, using it as cover and trying to get their hands on all any leaked rootkits and what not, as well as suggesting all kinds of whacked out stuff to freak out the media and siphon off the kids dumb or crazy enough to go for it.

I'd say the whole thing is a bust and over, but will re-form later and on demand. It's impossible for something like this to live thru any kind of real media attention.

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."Bear in mind, this is the guy who WROTE the constitution.

Note that 'patriots' comes before 'tyrants'. Jefferson fully expected that those who rebel would put their lives on the line, literally. Anon has done nothing to draw blood from either side - not even Barr's. You might think it looks bad, but I bet he comes out with just a few scratches.

You forget that in the decades leading up to open rebellion, the colonists printed stacks of pro-rebellion papers, defaced royalist proclamations and posted edicts, ignored or evaded taxation, and obstructed royal agents.

It's kind of hilarious how you keep spouting Jefferson quotes as if they were the solution to life's problems while demonstrating your ignorance of those same quotes. Jefferson wasn't talking about the American Revolution, he was talking about Shay's Rebellion. He thought it was good and proper that this particular rebellion was put down by the local militia and didn't have kind words for the rebels, either. He considered them a bunch of ignorant jackasses and remarked that the amount of indignation people feel is often inversely proportional to the importance of the issues they get wrong. Something to consider the next time you feel the itch to spew your batshit-crazy-ass sentiments out of Jefferson's mouth.

Also I enjoyed this article and the graphic in equally hugemongous amounts.

Am I the only one that suspects that most of what is on those IRC chats right now is disinfo? Anonymous has 'Co-Intel Pro v5.6.25' written all over it.

I'm really not a conspiracy guy, but I suspect that NSA/CIA/FBI, all sorts of DoD guys, Mossad and lord knows who else is crawling all over those boards, using it as cover and trying to get their hands on all any leaked rootkits and what not, as well as suggesting all kinds of whacked out stuff to freak out the media and siphon off the kids dumb or crazy enough to go for it.

I'd say the whole thing is a bust and over, but will re-form later and on demand. It's impossible for something like this to live thru any kind of real media attention.

I fully agree with you. It would seem that the recent upspring of their operations list. Any intelligent federal employ for any of those agencies would seed the forums/irc with several names all to point at a target and see who bites. Its easier to trace an attack if your the one who set up for it to happen. Also if your sharing info with other people, say a "newly developed code" to help in the attack you can then insert your own little tracers on it even.

Exactly. I'm a recent college graduate, and have no delusions of Social Security or Medicare ever benefiting, nor, out of principle, would I want them to. Government workers don't pay these taxes, instead directly funding their own personal retirement, and it is unfair that only they get this privilege.

"Myth No. 2: Congress doesn't pay into Social Security, so it doesn't care about fixing the crisis. The idea that U.S. lawmakers don't pay into Social Security is 25 years out of date. Before 1984, U.S. representatives and senators -- like all other federal employees -- weren't covered by Social Security and didn't pay into the system. Congress passed a law in 1983, which took effect the next year, requiring all of its members (and all federal employees hired after that year) to participate in the system."

I really wish Anonymous would go away. Why are they attacking the Koch brothers? Because they support the Tea Party? What happened to the freedom of speech they whine about whenever they talk?

You have a better idea of why when you look at the top two on the article's partial list of targets

Quote:

# Wisconsin's governor (for trying to revoke some collective bargaining rights of public unions) #opwisconsin# The Koch brothers, Koch Industries, and various holdings, especially if toilet-related (Quilted Northern was attacked over the weekend) #opkochblock

The Koch brothers have invested millions in trying to bust unions and their seed money is paying dividends in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Although the brothers have tried be low key about it, they are representative of a lot of the wealthy who have been spending a lot of money to support their ongoing attempts to capture an ever increasing percentage of the wealth.

I get upset when is see the uber wealthy starting foundations and think tanks that claim to be "help the working class", "support liberty and freedom" that are only there to support their agenda of making it more difficult to balance the ever increasing imbalanced flow of wealth toward the wealthiest. The whole Wisconsin thing has me angry, because although I am not a fan of unions, especially the corruption that seems to come with them, I think they provide a necessary counter balance to the abuses of big corporations.

The current concentration of wealth has left the working and middle class, even the very upper middle class, further behind than any time since before the great depression. Well respected economists argue that a big part this recession is seeing such a slow recovery is that middle class just no longer has the buying power needed to fuel a quick recovery.

Exactly. I'm a recent college graduate, and have no delusions of Social Security or Medicare ever benefiting, nor, out of principle, would I want them to. Government workers don't pay these taxes, instead directly funding their own personal retirement, and it is unfair that only they get this privilege.

"Myth No. 2: Congress doesn't pay into Social Security, so it doesn't care about fixing the crisis. The idea that U.S. lawmakers don't pay into Social Security is 25 years out of date. Before 1984, U.S. representatives and senators -- like all other federal employees -- weren't covered by Social Security and didn't pay into the system. Congress passed a law in 1983, which took effect the next year, requiring all of its members (and all federal employees hired after that year) to participate in the system."

Not talking about elected officials, just regular government employees. They don't pay Social Security or Medicare. I know, I was one. Worked in County-level government IT for 6 years in Ohio. Perhaps it's only State workers and lower? Or maybe it varies by state?

As for why they don't have any incentive to fix it, well, nearly everyone in Congress is already pretty wealthy to begin with, so what good is SS to them anyways?

Nice article. In one since Anon is a pure anarchy. People vote with their time and actions. In someways it a great study to see how groups can work with out a top down political structure. All tasks are done by peer pressure for good or bad. Because of this Anon will do good and bad things and thus are very nebulous. It makes for an interesting social/political study.